>>gregg: and before we wrap it up on "studio b" today, you never know who is watching. a burglar in florida learned the hard way after trying to steal or stealing a trailer from someone's driveway. the homeowner was watching not through a window or a surveillance video but he spotted the burglar as he was flying over his home in a private plane. the homeowner told reporters he called 9-1-1 after the suspect hooked the trailer to the truck and drove off and he followed in the plane until the place busted the suspect. there he is. they retrieved the trailer, the suspect charged with grand theft. you could say fly by turns that gentleman into a jailbird. that is it for "studio b" and the fox report is at 7:00 eastern and now "your world" with neil cavuto is next. >>neil: thank you.

what is up with this? look at that. what is up with that? the stocks are up. way up. what is up with investors usually do not abhor big government but are celebrating bigger government. wall and broad is celebrating what they even know is smoke and mirrors. welcome, everyone, i am neil cavuto and happy new year. we are off the cliff. now, right into the frying pan. wall street does not see it or maybe they don't care. i see it and i do care. so should you. ask yourself, we went to the brink for this? for a deal that does not shrink government but expands it at $4 trillion over 10 years. yes, more spending, not less, not a little more spending, $4

trillion more spending. for all the talking of raising taxes, here is what we have. $620 billion in taxes and $15 billion in spending cuts. forget 1-1 tax hikes to spending cuts. forget 2-1. forget 3-1. try 41-1. 41 times for tax hikes than spending cuts. wall street is whooping that up? $329 billion added to the federal deficit in 2013 and $4 trillion in 10 years. these are not my numbers but the numbers of the congressional budget office so let this final number sink in. $62 billion a year. but we get tax hikes off the fat cat each year. enough to fund the government for less than a week! not even a week. don't spend it all in one place

guys. if you think this is what you do on the brink, i hesitate to think what you do when we are not on the brink because behavior like this proves we will always be on the brink. that's why i suspect our credit rating will be downgraded and moody's hinting such an hour ago and wall street may not see it but a self respecting credit agency cannot miss it, washington cannot cut and washington cannot cut it so the aaa thing? stick a fork in it. the truth is, we do not deserve it. and a market watcher seas we are all going to pay. this is just a matter of time before the hammer comes down on the rating? >>guest: that is right. history could prove itself again because you saw this back in august of 2011 when we were talking about the debt ceiling increasing the debt ceiling which brought on the fiscal cliff. if you remember that time it was a few days later, that following friday after the market closed, standard & poor's downgraded the united states credit rating so

we can only assume, and wall street economists are quietly whispering this, we are expecting some type of another downgrade to take place probably in the next couple of days. >>neil: well the viewers say there goes neil cavuto back from vacation and the same old beating of the drum on how this is hell and high water and my only point in mentioning this is be careful of a one day snap reaction that is just relieved to have any deal but history shows markets eventually start selling off. will that happen here? or will the market just gladly continue whistling past the graveyard? >>guest: remember this is a headline-driven market and what i mean by that for fox, we hear the news each hour it changes but what we heard today going into the first trading day of the year, congress has the deal done, whether it is the right deal or not it doesn't matter.

it was closed and locked up and now we still have a number of head wins do deal with, clearly anemic growth and the debt cut and debt spending cut issue and debt ceiling issue and a number of things that will drive this market lower but the immediate need right now is to go long only because the deal is wrapped up. >>neil: we know from history that in 2008 with the first failed situation with the market falling quickly and they got back to vote on tarp two in washington and that is passed and a few months later we are down a few thousand more points for the dow and i guess what i am saying, the response can backfire playing with the markets. >>guest: the bad news is there. this is forthcoming next few weeks. think of the holiday retail sales. we heard a lot about shoppers,

american shoppers who are not spending like they normally do because of the feeling they were not confident or sure about the fiscal cliff and what would happen with their take home pay. now this is all put to rest the you do have the earnings reports coming out. we have a very important jobs number coming out on friday. there are a number of key economic data points that are rolling out just in the next few weeks that look to be quite poor. so, you have to suggest and think the markets, because they are headline driven, they will slide and start to sell off as we go through the rest of the month. so, buyer beware, investors beware, if you are looking at today thinking this is the way it will be for the rest of the year, you are sadly mistaken. there are too many negatives out there. >>neil: we are looking at the half e glass and trying to keep you aware of history, and markets that go ahead themselves. wait, there is still more. i have not gotten into the pork.

and this is oinking to the we high hills. so, not only more spending, but more bad spending. >>guest: more bad spending but this bill showed what the priorities in washington are. it is basically to have the american people pay more in taxes and give tax credits to some of the we political friends with benefits such as hollywood and making us give puerto rico some tax credits for their rum. it is prioritizing other things above the american people. >>neil: obviously they throe everything but the sketchen sink into a measure that started out about bringing in spending and ironically it sees it grow. the 41-1 ratio is sticking out to me. why not, wall street? what is going on? relief that a bad deal is better than no deal. >>guest: it is the headline market. they react to what is going on at the moment. they are not reacting to what

will happen here in two months. we will have another situation we have created for ourselves in dealing with potentially another fiscal cliff when it comes to finding ways to cut spending and to actually do what the bill is supposed to do and balance our fiscal imbalance. that is the problem. we started this conversation to be about spending but republicans and democrats alike made this about taxes. the president said it would be about taxes and the whole time republicans were playing on his terms on his turf. >>neil: amazing. happy new year. >> you still think you are not paying for this? i want you to listen to this, if washington isn't dialing back on the spending they have to hit up more than just the fat cats paying? $600 in tax hikes over 10 years is not remotely close to covering the $4 trillion in more spending over the same 10 years. even taking all of the fat cats'

money will not do that. so, then what do the politicians do? they move down the old food chain says my next guest, and that means moving down to you. >>guest: they do. obama said that the other night with the pep rally when he said if republicans think this is the last of the revenue measures they have another thing coming. this is obama who said he was not going to raise taxes on anyone making under $200,000. he now has raised taxes on 80 percent of the american public. >>neil: you are talking about the payroll tax, holiday expiring. >>guest: that counts. >>neil: people out what we are liking to see. obviously we have a lot more will to spend than anything else but so pay for that you have to get more money proposed. >>guest: right, but what will happen ironically and now republicans are complicity in this, we are actually going to

see revenue for that upper income tax bracket go down. when you raise taxes on an segment of income, the tax revenue constricts. reagan showed us when you lower it, even significantly, you will see a significant increase in what the government gets back. we are headed in an implausible direction where tax revenue will be constricted and government spending is continuing and growing. so, what we are really going to see is significant political implications from this and if republicans held the line, and if maybe they had taken rand paul's suggestion and said, fine, you do what you want but we are not going to be blamed for this, republicans might actually take the upper hand but they did not stand up to this or fight for the important budget cuts, the spending rollback they prompted the american people they promised when they will

elected to congress. >>neil: in doubt they caved. the argument you hear that it could be different this time back in 1986 when ronald reagan agreed to raids -- raise taxes the ratio then was $3 in cuts for $1 in tax hikes. the reality is we did not quit get to that but certainly it wasn't 41-1 in hikes versus cuts. >>guest: and reagan said that was the biggest mistakes ever trusting the democrats to make the cuts. we know it never happens that way. republicans have to take their opportunity in the few times they get them to use the leverage they truly do have to insist on cutting spending. >>neil: they did not talk about it. i would admire a phony promise but they did not even offer itful >>guest: because they cower immediately and fell to the whom you only care about the

mega wealthy and you want to balance the budget on the back of children with disabilities. hoyer saying republicans are like people who take their children hot tag and threaten to shoot them. that is the kind of rhetoric the hostage taking rhetoric that president obama has been using as the divider in for over four years. yet republicans seem stunned we do not have an economic argument. there was never a single argument put forward as to why there was an economic benefit on raising taxes on the mega wealths and and the employers. it was punitive measure. >>neil: i would hike to be proven wrong. you have her one thing in the media and the rally based on this, it is not what it appears and, again, sign me up for wanting to be very, very off about this but i suspect from history and having covered prior periods with so-called "deals" that made sense on paper, that

doesn't pan out that way. >> never have so many felt so bummed on a second term that looks ho hum. why ahead of the swearing in a lost americans are just...swear ing.

>>neil: president obama is headed into the second term and in the march down pennsylvania avenue with more americans feeling down in the dumps, nearly a quarter saying they are satisfied with the direction of the country. that is the lowest number since back to ronald reagan. what do we take away from that, art laffer? >>guest: i don't think it looks good. it is bad. but your waistcoat, that looks wonderful and the economy looks bad and obama owns it. after these votes and the fiscal cliff and the negative of the votes we can talk about the good thing now obama owns the

economy. he has his tax increases, it is his. i don't think the economy will look good for quite a while. frankly, that is for 2014. >>neil: with the exception of you and i know in the face of bill clinton's tax hikes when he came to office, a lot of folks were very worried, you at the time were not because he was marrying it and especially in future years with welfare to work and real constructive shrimping of government. that was very different. so i suspect this will be very different. could there be a situation where art laffer says this could work out? >>guest: no. i don't think so. remember, bill clinton raised the personal income tax rate, that is true. he cut the capital gains tax rate. he cut taxes on the elderly. he did all sorts of wonderful things if there on taxes. he got rid of the capital gains

tax on owner occupied homes. it was amazing what he did on spending, cutting spending by the next four best presidents combined. clinton is a very different person that president obama and i don't see any hope but for political change. we will get our chance in 2014. now that he owns the economy and the democrats --. >>neil: you argue the republicans will do well in the midterm? >>guest: they will do really well in the midterm. i view a nixon like second term for president obama to be honest. your poll numbers are showing that type of drop. it happened very quickly. >>neil: i look at bad poll numbers for congress, as well. >>guest: that is true. you do not elect a congress. you elect a congress person. that is the big difference. you elect a president. when the negatives are out of orbit, it is hard to bring them

back. nixon could not do it, and i don't think obama can, either. he only has one term left. >>neil: well...ronald reagan when he agreed in the 1986 tax hike to raise taxes although they were lower than when he came into office he agreed with a commitment to cut spending at the time the ratio was 3-1 spending cuts over hikes. that did not pan out but it wasn't 41-1, the ratio of hikes to cuts now. that worries me, that there is no push behind the deal. >>guest: it was 1982 he did the tradeoff of 3-1. that did not work out. he got the $98 billion tax increase. bob dole publicked that through. he got a promise of three times as many. in 1986 it was revenue neutral. not a dollar more or less. so we property the rates down to 28 percent and created the enormous prosperity.

president obama is no ronald reagan. i knew ronald reagan. >>neil: you just did the head thing. >>guest: i can do it better, too. i am glad we have gotten rid of this issue. when this is off the table, it becomes obama's economy and i hope that the republicans in the house of representatives hold firm on the debt creaming and on spending cuts. now is their time to shine. they have done a great job so far in the senate and in the house of representatives. they did not have much choice. now they have a lot of choice. i hope they exercise their choices well. >>neil: i have my doubts. hope springs eternal. you share your old boss' optimistic half full worldview. >>guest: we are at the bottom, the winter solstice and only uphill from now on. >>neil: there you go.

happy new year, my friend. >>guest: happy new year. >>neil: what the "chuck" you curse at work, you might as well kiss your career goodbye?

>>neil: we have word that hillary clintonly, has left the hospital and accompanied by her family with scenes of chelsea and former president clinton leaving the hospital with her. all seems to be well. we will keep you posted. in the meantime, hoping work goes better in 2013? you better not curse.

if a study is right, 38 percent of employers find foul language to be good enough reason to fire your butt or your ass but is it legal? we have lis wiehl and rebecca. >> there are two extinct situations. if you are an at will employ or or you have a contracts. that separates it out. if you hired at will you could be fired at will for almost anything. like we saw last week, the iowa supreme court found a woman could be fired for being true pretty. how ridiculous. >>neil: i know that from a man's point of view. the cross i bear. i thought this was a leap. lis? >> it is a total leap. to be able to fire people because of the way they speak. unless they create a situation where there is a hostile work environment and they are told again and again and again your

colleagues do not like hearing the words. >>neil: there is a difference between now and then. in a couple of cases it is every other word. >>guest: there is a difference between how office den and how it affects your co-workers and clientses. if you be in a public service situation and you curse, that affects someone's bottom line because you may not have customers come back. that could be a cause. cursing can create an economic situation and you are not working in the proper environment to get customers to return. >>neil: say you have been warned you have do cool it on the language. >>guest: and they make people feel uncomfortable. they should tell you. >>neil: what if they do to your bosses, like this crew, here, me in particular. he would go behind my back being the worm that he is, no offense, and i would not know about it and i would be fired.

>>guest: no, no, the employer should have to tell you. i have a better solution than firing. remember the old soap in the mouth, what i would do, with you if i got that report, i would hand this soap over to you and say, wash your mouth out with soap. or else. >>neil: i will live that one alone. you don't find this is over-the-top? >>guest: i do. it is ridiculously over-the-top situation. the iowa supreme court it was crazy to fire someone being fired for irresistable. >>neil: what did they rule? >>guest: because a woman was irresistable to the dentist and his wife did not like the fact he found her irresistable he could fire her. >> in a household where they did not have a lot of kurtzing, and they do not hear it, and put you

in a situation where they hear your foul mouth, what are they going do go? >> you regularly appear on a remain on show where every other word out of the guy --. >> but not me. >>neil: the argument is it is harassment? >>guest: it could be. but there has to be proof, not just fire willy-nilly but at will. if you are under contract. >>neil: what if you are directly abused, if i am cursing at you, that is very difficulty. >>guest: that is different. because you targeting someone. >>neil: there is a limit to owe love 15 you course, to whom you were cursing. >>guest: and if you curse at subordinates who feel they cannot do anything to come back at you. >> look at the situation. >>neil: just wither away. writing notes. as we speak.

>>guest: it is a rather occurrence to curse and it is accepted in that community. >> you draw the line, where, in the frequency or who they are directed at? >>guest: it is all an individual one-on-one basis. i have to determine, first, whether the person is there and has a contract. if they have a contract you relate have to establish cause. >> there are people that are really offended bit swearing. >>neil: you usually leap at suing everything. >>guest: of course, i am a lawyer. >>neil: forget the new congress that will be brought in tomorrow, i want you to meet the woman who says get rid of all of them, all of them, right now.

[ male announcer ] eligible for medicare? that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, they pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and save you up to thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. call today to request a free decision guide to help you better understand what medicare is all about. and which aarp medicare supplement plan works best for you. with these types of plans,

you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients... plus, there are no networks, and you'll never need a referral to see a specialist. there's a range of plans to choose from, too. and they all travel with you. anywhere in the country. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, call today. remember, medicare supplement insurance helps cover some of what medicare doesn't pay -- expenses that could really add up. these kinds of plans could save you up to thousands in out-of-pocket costs... you'll be able choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and you never need referrals. so don't wait. with all the good years ahead,

look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide. this easy-to-understand guide will answer some of your questions, and help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that's right for you. >>neil: this is what happens when you get no vote on sandy relief. >> we cannot and we should not wait. we must not walk away. >> this is a disaster on top of a disaster. >> absolutely inexcusable and

indefensible. >> this is an absolute disgrace. and the speaker should hang his head in shame. >> well, not exactly hang his head in shame but he is changing it and now speaker boehner is putting it to a vote in two installments starting on friday but why i think holding off on this was right on especially when you realize how this money was going to be targeted and spent. just say not for sandy victims. are we being unspeakably cruel to the speaker? we do not hear that in the mainstream media. we will attempt a fair and balanced treatment of this tonight at fox business network. >> one of a select new democrats whom spending was not a calling, but save this species let history record blue dogs and fiscally conservative democrats while more liberal in social out look were anything yet but for our financial outlook, and among

more than a dozen like-minded fiscal purists and later tonight, could be half a handful when the different democrat goes the way of the do-do bird forced out when constituents favored bacon over a guy taking away the bacon. i could go into the details of losing a primary and that guy using a general election but there guy is not staying. the pennsylvania congressman part of a dying breed of principled politicians who felt saving taxpayer' money mattered and things like money mattered. and before he becomes extinct he is with me. congressman, how do you feel? >>guest: thank you for that wonderful introduction. >>neil: didn't mean to call you a do-do bird but as i said, you were and are a principled we guy and not a slave to either party or the predictable ways, you wanted a middle ground.

>>guest: i have to say i feel good about my time in office, and i did what the district i recommended wanted me to do. i feel good. >>neil: why did they vote you out? >>guest: we did reapportionment and combined two districts in one, i won 70 percent of the democrats in the democratic primary from the district i represent voted for me. that wasn't the issue. the other congressman i ran against had higher turnout and as you said he ended up losing in the fall to a guy i beat last time and it was just an unusual circumstance but a lot of the animosity driven in the primary is because of a few votes i cast. >>neil: like you say it is moot point. what scares me in the deal tilted to tax hikes the appetite for spending cuts is not there. i am not saying it may not

eventually be there in the future and someone will get something resembling a backbone but you risked a great deal of political outcry trying to address spending and trying to take on your speaker at the time, nancy pelosi, and a continuing role of minority leader and it was like you were always up against the tide. what happens now? >>guest: well, both parties have done it. we talks about that before on the democratic side. they will have to come to terms with the fact that the american people are fed up with the spending, in question about that. on the republican side, the american people are fed up with the lack of ability to work together. they will have to resolve that among their own conference and speaker boehner will have to figure out a way to better bring everyone together on his side and work with the other party on top of that. so, the congress is not operating as it was designed to operate. no question about that. there are a lot of reasons why that is the case. the country suffers when we do not have people in the middle

that can work together and compromise and do big things. that is where most of the american people would like us to be but that is not the time of person we are sending to washington. >>neil: it would be far easier to slap on tax hikes than cut spending i would think against the bring and against the reality of everything hitting the fan spending cuts i thought would materialize. but they did not. if they did not materialize now at the verge of what locked like a public suicide watch how will they ever materialize? >>guest: the republicans have more leverage next time around than this time. i am sure spending will be a big topic of discussion when the debt ceiling comes up and when the sequester in two months expires. >>neil: we will go do the brink again. why, when there is not a deadline, can't we get something done ahead of it?

>>guest: congress has never been able to act or rarely acted through the decades without a hard deadline. unfortunately, the fiscal cliff was designed specifically to force action because congress never would have made the difficult decisions if there were not a hard deadline and the debt ceiling provides another deadline so i don't think we should remove that from congressional authority. congress needs to have a say whether the debt ceiling is raised. this should not be policemen -- not be political leverage. >>neil: you are a decent man, congressman, with enormous integrity and hope springs eternal your d.n.a. is left in congress. thank you for your service and all you have done. >>guest: thank you, haunt new year. >>neil: ahead of the swearing in, and consideration of the new members, after the the vote last

night, one member said no one should keep their job in congress. you are steaming mad. why? >>guest: look what happened. the freshmen congressmen are paid $180,000 a year! off of our back, off of america's back and we work until april 17 to pay all of the taxes and all of the spending these guys do and they do nothing. they do nothing to stop the real problem. they talk about taxes when taxes are irrelevant. you have said this and i agree the problems are systematic. they belong in the spending. we need real change. when i lose weight i put it off tomorrow, i will start tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow, these people >>neil: i try never to start because that process is ahead of time, very, very frustrating. >>guest: you would do well in congress. that is the mentality. put off what is hard and put off doing what is right at the expense of a political gain.

>>neil: they are not penalized. that bothers me. i cast blame on both parties. they had a chance under the threat of this fiscal suicide, to do something brave and they didn't. i think if they didn't do it under did duress, they will never, ever ever ever do it no wonder moody's is saying you are not out of the fire yet. >> it is devastating to the membership. i cannot express enough, the president has lied on a number of issues, he promised not to raise taxes on the middle-class, he raised taxes on us today. we now have, if any of us are stupid enough to go do work and collect a paycheck and not take from the government? we are now paying more to the government. >>neil: you are talking about the payroll tax. >>guest: yes. >>neil: do you see this settling? you cannot call them all back thousand. what will happen in two years? >>guest: there will be a reckoning. >>neil: for whom? >>guest: for everyone.

a pox on both houses. the president is doing, the democrats, they want people to -- the president said he would fundamentally transform america. he has. he has brought us to our knees. he is lowering our standard of living. he is deliberately doing the fiscal initiatives that will hurt and cripple us. he ising for like hinge con other than he is a man, and that abraham lincoln is a role model, that is a joke. we cast ourselves into a dark age we will not recover from. with guys like the blue dog democrats, the democratic party is complicity, they want do bring us to our knees. the republicans do not do what is right and stand on principle. that harms me and our children. this is a long dark period we are going into for america and i

would like to say positive things because i am an optimist but it is hard. this is going to hammer us. we are going to be hammered. >>neil: jennifer, thank you very much. i think. happy new year. good to see you. >> if the taxes do nut kill you, the regulations will. john stossel on a lot more rules that will make you...unruly. truly.

..

>>neil: a new year and not just new tax hikes. haw about 400 new laws. in chance was, do not think about getting a 5th cat. in kentucky you cannot release a wild hog in the wild. in illinois you cannot pop a wheelie on a motorcycle. in california if your dog pursues a bear, police will be pursuing you. have no fear, john stossel is here with the way to set us all free. >> is this our future? smart robots that will kill us. >> it is possible to build smart machines. >> but we have a sea of new media here to capture this like.

>> you, the public, have five days to look online and find out what is in it before i sign it. >> they are hiding things they do caught in want us to see. what if you are hiding things do you not want government do see? drugs or guns or whatever, it is not a sign you are doing something wrong. lots of reason to want private summit. >> the founder of wikileaks joins. >> it is not perfect. it works because of the internet and reputation, the more the mechanisms work, the less we need government. >> that is good. the future doesn't have to be scary. >> a robot can no more commit murder than a human walk on water. >> freedom 2.0. that is what we will call it. >>neil: here we go. a doubling down on new rules and regulations and no excuse if you violate them because ignorance is an excuse. >> they keep passing more. my show is the way the internet helps us escape some but they

add more. new illinois law allows you to have a sip of alcohol if you are participating in a culinary program starting today. you may taste but not imbibe. >>neil: they know the difference? >> obviously someone comes up with this and says it needs to be in writing in a book to be put on a vessel and if you are found to violate this, whether you know it exists or not you are liable. >>guest: join goes to congress and asks, congress, what law did you repeal this year? it is always, what more have you done? these silly stupid laws you cite part of the problem. the real killers are obamacare, dodd-frank, hundreds of pages, and this is just a fraction. dodd-frank alone, in here, 398 times, it says, "and the secretary will write a rule and those rules will be 100 to 200

pages each." if you want to start a business you have to wade through all this. >>neil: it is not something that goes through congress, this is arbitrary, right? >>guest: i would not call it arbitrary. some bureaucrats thinks it is good. i don't know that running it through congress makes it better. >>neil: i would think on the dog chasing the bear, i don't think that would pass, a dog voting "yes." >>guest: that was done by regulators. >>neil: i have in proof. >>guest: i would think the bob cat could teach the dog a lesson without bureaucrats being involved. >>neil: i was here the other day and john's studio audience gathered and they are rabid and fired up and half the fun is watching them get annoyed. it is great stuff. catch it on fox business.

>>neil: when we come back, congress, you deserve a raise. are you serious? that is an open question.

>>neil: we are getting word that president obama although he is in hawaii will sign the 157-page fiscal cliff bill that keeps the lights on in washington, dc, and the spending on in washington. it will be signed electronically so although he is in hawaii, the bill is there but there is coming from bret baier that it will be signed and good as gold. while everyone is focusing on the fiscal cliff, something else is slipping through the cracks. days after the president lifted

the federal worker pay freeze house lawmakers are voting to officer their salaries saying they do not deserve extra money and my guest says that could be true of elected officials but not necessarily for all federal workers. explain. >> when something comes out of the legislature it is like going to the big top circus. why punish the federal workers because they do nut do their job? it is not a spending cut. it will not save anything. it is just more dog and pony grandstanding. >>neil: i agree with that. why penalize all federal workers when it was the elected officials that left us down in both parties. if you do not get something done or it is done late or some this obnoxious, this is no way did run an asylum, that is what they

are doing, running poor hurricane sandy an -- poorly an asylum. >>guest: the average person would be fired. you would stay you will stay at the company but you do not have to pay me? get out! >>neil: what is odd, most are rewarded with re-election. there are revolts where we turnout large numbers of them in the election that brought in newt gingrich or the crowd that came in with president obama but that is more the exception. they were richly rewarded for being lazy, and insignificant, you know what. >>guest: it is politics as usual. we have some elections coming up, some good u.s. senate elections and if i am working for some of them this have a good chance to win i will hold their feet to the fire. if they do not stand up i will

not raise money for them. everyone is disgusted. >>neil: probably a lot disgusted. both take it out on the park rangers. keep them out of it. thank you very much. speaker boehner does not obligate cry he now and then curses. i never minded the crying thing and after you hear what got the speaker spewing i don't think you will mind one bit the cursing thing.

.

at a dry cleaner, we replaced people with a machine. what? customers didn't like it. so why do banks do it? hello? hello?! if your bank doesn't let you talk to a real person 24/7, you need an ally. hello?

ally bank. your money needs an ally. >> neil: so apparently house speaker john boehner told harry reid to do something that was an tom ibly impossible -- anatomically impossible. rhymes with chuck himself. it happened friday, steps from the oval office. now neither boehner nor reid are talking much about it, but politico was boasting to house colleagues about it. for what it's worth i think it's true. for what it's worth it's entirely justified; particularly, coming at it did, a day after reid accused boehner behind his back of running dictatorship in the house, that he was concerned about hanging on to his job than striking a deal.

he did the very thing that they would call being met with a deal. he sealed his doom, agreeing to the higher taxes without a token gesture in spending cut in return for harry reid. the deal ultimately agreed to has 41 times more tax hikes than spending cutting. not one to one. or two to one. or three to one. or four to one. 41 to 1. so i understand the speaker speaking the way he did with a guy that wasn't doing what he said. it's a wonder that boehner didn't drop the "f" bomb more. the irony here is boehner could lose the job trying to make a deal. harry reid will likely keep his job. boehner is a bore for being blunt and telling the other guy to his face, but reid is an angel for being phony. and referring to rip the other guy only behind his back.

this isn't about a speaker losing it. this little exchange is more about a phony decorum that tries to hide it. what is weird is both like boehner an cantor are called fiscal stiffs on the cover of the "new york daily news" for having serious issues with a rescue bill for sandy victims because it wasn't going to just sandy victims. but democrats happy to sign a $60 billion blank check are saints, saying they are happy to tap it to repair smithsonian museum roof and plant trees in ohio. untold millions for items with nothing to do with sandy. not exactly dancing. it's a wonder boehner didn't curse more. more of a wonder why the media didn't wish he did. that is not fair and not right. it's wrong. would it kill us to get the other side of the story? would we ever try?